dismissed EB-1A Case: Life And Environmental Science

(b)(6)
Date: 
DEC 112013 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u;s. Department of Homeland Se,curtty 
U.S. Citize~hip . ancllmmigration Services 
Office of Ad.tJ#TJistra,tive Appet?../s 
20 MassachUSetts Ave., N.W., MS2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citttenship 
and Ittiin.i •· tion ... .. --- _gra 
Services 
FILE: 
APPLICATION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien Of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of tb~ Immigr<t.tion and Nationality Act, 8 t!.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INS'l'J{UCfi_ONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) i.n your case. 
This i.s a f!OQ-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO inC()rrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
Il)otion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Forml-290B) . . 
within 33 days of the date of thiS qecision. Please review the Fonn I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/fonns for the latest information on fee, filing location, and. ·other requirements. 
· See also,8 C.ER. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank yo';:# 
?JR:P,...----. 
R . R . ··· b f-oo . osen erg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Pagei 
l>lSCUSSlON: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
.petition, which is now before the Administnttive Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. , 
The petitioner seeks classification as an ":;dieQ. of extraordinary a,bility" in the, sciences as a life and 
envitofilllental scientist, pursuant to section 203(bX1XA) of the lminigration and Natio:gCJ.lity Af;t(the 
Act)~ 8 U.S.C. §.1153(b)(l)(A). According to the petitioner's curriculum Vitae, she was employed as a 
postdoctoral associate at the time of filing. T.be d~rector detelllJiJu~d the petitioner had not established· 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as ~ alien or' 
extraordinary ability. 
Congre'ss set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the sta..tute 
tha..t the petitioner demowtrate the a:lien's "sustained national or international acclaim'' and presertt 
".extellSive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1XA)(i) of the Act and. 
8 C.F.R·. § 204.5(h)(3). the implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(hX3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or intemationat a<>cla..i.m through evide1_1ce of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regul.a..tjoi_l otJ,tlin~s 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 2045(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that USCIS did not consider all of the evidence of record in issuing the 
decision. Specifically, counsel states that USCIS did not consider or acknowledge the subniitted 
citation record. Counsel also asserts tb~J USCIS did QOt provide a basis for determining as insufficient 
two additional support letters that the petitioner submitted for esta..blish4tg contributions of major 
signj,fjcance. In a..dd.ition, eounsel asserts that USCIS improperly dismissed as insufficient the letter 
submitted to substantiate the petitioner's critical role in an organi~tion with a distinguished reputation. 
l. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, ifi pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. .. .. Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified iminigralits who a:re 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, ems, ed,l,lcation, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive doculilentation, · 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in· the are~ of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PR;::CEDENT DECISION 
/ 
(ii.i) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship apd Immigmtiop Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and NaturaliZation SerVice 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high st~dBJd for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Feq. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991 ). The term ''extraordinary ability" refers oiily to 
those individuals in that sm~l percentage who have risen to the very top of tbe fj~ld of endeavor. /d.; 
8 C.P~R. § 204.5(h)(2). . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrat~ the aii~n's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
·either through evidence of a one-tim~ achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) ot 
through the submiSsion of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categones of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R.. § 204.5(h)(3)(1)-(x). · 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CirCUit (Ninth Circuit)reviewed the d~nial of a petition 
fil~d under this classification.. /((;lzt.Z.rian v. USCIS, 596 F~3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F,R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the co-urt con.c.luded t;h!lt while USCIS may have raised legitimate ooncerns 
about the significance of the evidence subriiitted to meet those two criteria, those con<::erns should have 
been rai.sed ina, subsequent ''fip.al merits determination." /d. at 1121-22. 
the court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understan4ing of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the signific~ce ofevide.nce as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "th~ 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)/' and if the petitioner 
: failed to submit sufficient evidence, ''the proper conclusion is that the applicant has fail~d to Sl;ltisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as tbe AAO concluded).'' /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Tb:u.s, K{;l~.tl,rum sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a fmal merits determination.. lt1 this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitidner has failed to sati~fy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
1 SpeCifically, the court stated that tbe AAO had ul)ilaterally imposed novel substantive. or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi}. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A .. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the aUen 's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which requite outstaruling achievements of their members, as jullged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The ,petitioner previously submitted evidence u:ndet this criterion. The director's decision concluded 
that the petitioner did not meet this criterion and the petitioner does not identify any factual or legal 
error relating to this criterion on app~al. Cons~quently, the petitioner abl;tlldoned this claim. See 
Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 h. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United Sta~e$ v. 
Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV,27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept 30, 2011) (plltintiffs claims were abl;tlldoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
. r 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C,F.R.. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). · 
the director determined in the decision that the petitioner met this regUlatoty criterion and the record 
s~pports the director's conclusions in this reg~d. 
Evid.ence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, · or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R, § ?04.5(h)(3)(v). 
Tbe director con~luded !Mt tile petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
director did not properly Weigh the citation record in making his decision. In addition, counsel asserts 
that the director did not give sufficient consideration to the letter from Dr. and the letter 
from Dr. which the pe4tioner submitted in response to the director's Request for 
Evidence (RFE). 
The evidence submitted along with the petitioner's Form 1-140 in support-of this criterion is insufficient 
to satisfy the re~latory .requirements. The petitioner listed the following experience on her CU:rriculum 
vitae: as a scientist pool officer at , as a postdoctoral 
research scientist at and as a postdoctoral associate at The 
petitioner su.bmitted letters from the following collea~es With the Form 1-140 petition: 
Director at ?h.D., 
Professor -of Genetics and Development and ObstetriCs and Gynecology at 
Oncology at 
Scientist-D at the 
'· 
, Professor and Vice-Chairman of Radiation 
·Ph.D., 
The petitioner also submitted 
2· Tbe petitioner do~s i;lot cl~im to meet or submit evidence relating; to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. -
(b)(6)
PageS 
letters from tbe following independent members of her field" 
of Internal Medicine at 
at the 
Scientific Officer Cit 
Molecular Biology, and Biotechnology at 
I 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION _.· 
' 
Ph.D., Assist(lllt :Professor 
Scientist 
India; Ph.D., Chief 
Ph,D., Professor of Biochemistry, 
, India. 
While rnailY of the l~tte~ from tbe (lbove group are c()n!plimentary of the petitioner's talents as a 
researcher and scientist, they are largely vague and conclusory regarding the impact the petitioner's 
work has had in the field. For instance, Dr. writes: "I have no doubt that [the petitioner's] 
con4:ibuti.on_s on these irnportcmt issues of healtb wo11ld benefit the healthcare and economy of United 
·States, to a great extent. ... I would say that the experience, [the petitioner] has gained in ber resear~b 
career, would be of immense help to any nation.'' Similarly, Dr. writes: "I ain happy to have 
known one of the envirolll11enta1 scientist's [sic] like [the petitioner], His because of the work of such 
scientists' [sic] that our understanding of how pollutants can affect our health has increased 
considerably. _ the credit of cleaner and healthier environment goes to people like bet, who are behind 
(ill the research and creating awareness on how poll\lt(ints affect ow health.?' USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. · 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.C. :bist. 1990). 
Other references diScuss the petitioner's mastery of techniques and potential for future contributiQns. 
Dr. praises the petitioner's mastery of gene-screening techniques and overall talent and concludes 
that 
she ''has great potential and promise to t:n(i,k.e. S\lbsta,nt{(il contributions in biomedical sciences.'' Dt. 
references the petitioner's application of sophisticated molecular techniques cmd ability to 
apply high-throughput methods and concludes that ~'her subsequent discoveries here Will have an 
inunediate impact on the design of drugs .that specifiCCilly target ·such disease forms.'' the ·mastery of 
existing techniques that others developed is not ail original contribution in the field. Moreover, tbe 
plain lapguage of tbe regu}(ltio:n at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence. of pa5t contributions of 
major significance, not the potential to make such contribution_s Qi the future. 
Some of the letters from the (lQove group ' specifically discussed the petitioner's areas of resear~h and 
. asserted that her work in tbese areas added to the knowledge base in the field. For example, Dr. 
· observes: "This important discovery of delineating one of the pathways of hormone-in,dqced cancer is 
an important and crucial study conducted by [the petitioner], she is responSible for becoming a platform 
for furt.her research on how and what pathways are involved in the formation of oxidative stress in 
normal cells that compel a normal condition to get · transformed into a diseased state. [the petitioner's] 
research haS not. only advanced our understanding of the mechanism of oxidative stress iJivolved in 
hormone-induced breast carcinogenesis, but also provided very important ififotmation for early 
diagnosis and prediction of tumor formation." The petitioner's field, like most science, is research­
driven, and there would be little point in publishing research that did not add to the general pool of 
knowledge in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(V), an alien's 
contributions must be not only original but of major significance. The phrase "major $ignificance'' is 
not superfluous and, thus, has some meaning. To be conSidered a. contribution of major significance in 
the field of science, it can be expected that the result,s would have · a.Ire(ldy been reproduced and 
confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is 
difficult to gauge the impact of the 
petitioner' s_ work. The petitioner; s independent references do not claim to be influenced by the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
petitioner's work and, for the most part, provide little explanation for how they know of the petitioner's 
work. 
Counsel on aQpeal asserts that the letter from Ph.D., Ex-Deputy Pirector of th~ 
_ . _ which the petitioner submitted along 
with the response to the dir~tor's RFE, demonstrates the impact of the petitioneris work. Dr. 
describes the scope of the petitioner reSearch regarding the effects of the Pippaliyadi d11,1g 
and observes that the research was important because India reconuilended the subject drug for inclusion 
in the country's Nation~ Population Control Prognlll1. However, there is nothing in the record or letter 
to suggest that the decision to include the drug as part of the program was related to or was a direct 
result of the petitioner's study. For example, the petitioner did not submit existing or proposed 
· guidelines citing the petitioner's work. While the petitioner lists on her Ct,Irriculum vitae a 2007 journal 
she authored on the subject in 2007, the reoord contains no evidence of citations of this article, . 
, With respect to the letter from a · professor at the School of Studies fu Zoology arid 
Biotechnology at· the letter appears to be ./ another example when~ the author 
di.scw;ses the petitio~er' s rese(lfch in some detail and observes that her research has added to the field . 
. Or. however, focuses on the novelty of the petitioner's research in that she published results 
not previously reported in'' the field. While t!Ie petitioner's research results ate original, she has not 
demonstrated that they are of rnajor signif:iamce. 
' A$ noted by the director, the record also contains evidence that independent experts have cited the 
petitioner's work. SpeCifically; two of the petition~r's articles, one of which is a review -article that 
compiles the work of others rather than · rep<>rtiiig her own original results; have ~ered a moderate 
nUJ:I:lber of citations ·ea~h. A moderate number of citations, without supplemental evidence providing 
some context for the significance of the citations, does not conclusively demonstrate that the petitioner's 
· work is widely known and has had a significant impact on the field. On a:ppea:l, counsel submi~ two 
JJnp11blished AAO d~cisi6~ for the proposition that citations can demonStrate eligibility under this 
criterion. While 8 C.F.R § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on .·all 
USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Moreover, both decisions counsel provides reference ''hundreds'' of citations, including one article 
that individually received more than one hupdred citations. The petitioner in this matter has not 
Submitted evidence of hundreds .of citations, Thus, counsel ha_s not expl'!-ined the relevance of these 
unpublished decisions. 
Fot all ofthe above reasons, the petitioner does not meet this criteriQn, 
Evidence of the alieYJ 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional ot majot trade 
publications or other majot media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director determ.in~ in the decision that the petitioner met this regulatory criterion ,a.nd the record 
supports the dite.ctor's conclusions in this tega.rd. · 
(b)(6)
NON-P/l.ECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or cntical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a d~stinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The petitioner submitted evidence under this criterion along with the Form 1,.140 petition. The 
petitioner subsequently submitted an additional letter i~ support of this criterion in responSe to the 
director's RFE. On ~ppeal, counsel asserts that the director di.d not sl.lfficiently consider all the 
submitted evidence for this criterion. ' · 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, its duties, and how it fits within the 
hierarchy of the organization or establishment. A critical role is one in which the petitioner 
positively iplpacted the s~ccess or standing of lhe organization or establishment. 
According to her curriculum vitae, the petitioner was working as a postdoctoral associate at 
at tbe time of fiUgg. The etltioner has not documented how postdoctoral associates fit 
within the hierarchy of or even the center at where the petitioner 
works. Notably, Dr. lists his postdoctoral experience under education and training on his 
Cll_rricull.lro vitae. :Or. Associate Professor of Cell Biology at 
School of Medicine, one of the petitioner's references, characterizes his postdoctoral employment as 
''Postdoctoral training'' on his curriculum vitae. Dr. lists his postdoctoral fellowships as hi.s 
fi.r:st professional experience upon completing his Ph.D., subsequently advancing to· an assistant 
researcher position and then an assistant professor position. · Tbe record a_s a- whole does not 
demonstrate that a postdoctoral associate position is a leading role fot or the center 
at where tbe petitioner works. 
With regard to whether the petitioner's role was critical; the petitioner relies oil letters~ 0 the support 
letter from Director of the 
. which the petitioner submitted along With the initial Form 1-140 petition pac~~ge, provides: 
"[The petitioner] was recruited from _ New York in a tole to set up and maintain a 
cell culture laboratory and as an assay development scientist .... In addition to managing the .cell 
culture laboratory, [the petitioner] is also respollSible and a crucial member of the as an assay 
development scientist.;, · .~ 
In response .to the. RFE, the_ petitioner submitted a letter from . Ph.D., ~ciate 
Professor of Cell B10logy at thel _ He wnte~ about the pet1t10ner' s 
role at the as follows: ''[The petitioner] was recruited from New 
York to be respon,siiJle for - ~ position of utmost importance and a critical nature, and that was to set .. u:p 
the. hu:man/animal cell culture laboratory and the wet lab for performing research and development 
. work at It is important to mention that [a] tell culture laboratory is the most fundamental and 
the most necessary requirement for any research involving studies in in vitro.;-, Dr. provides 
additional detail relating to the petitioner's role, explaining the projects for which the petitioner h~ 
performed a criti®. role. The plain language of the regulation, however, requires that the petitioner 
have perfotmed in a critical role for an organization or establishment, not an ihdivjdua_l project. Most of 
the projects are pending publication, and Dr. does not explain how they have impacted 
While Dr. discusses a collaboratiop. with which resulted in the publication of 
the results on website, -Dr. does not explain how this prqject impacted the 
(b)(6)
. ) 
Page 8 
reputation or overall success of 
a critical role for 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
such that t}le petitioner's work on this project can be considered 
Even if the petitioner's tole was a critical role, the evidence . of record is insufficient to satisfy all of the 
plain .language requi,rements of the criterion. While the section of Dr. letter describing the 
and the work:done ther~ is und_er the heading: "L THE 
' the letter · does not provide any information about 
reputation and there is no independent documtmtation supporting the cla,im of a distinguished 
reputation. USClS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 
SJO (C, D. CA July 6, Z007) a./f'd2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not 
have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magaziPe's status as major 
media). Moreover, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting t.he burden of proof in th.ese proceedings. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Colfini't 
1998) and Matter of Ho, 22 l&N Dec. 206, 211 (Comm'r l998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft o/Califomiq, 14 I&N bee. 190 (Reg;l Comm'r 1972)). 
Finally, even if the record had supported the. conclusion that the petitioner performed in a critic~ role 
{or ru:t org~a,tion with a distinguished reputation, the regulatory language at 8 C.F.K 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii} requires that the alien in question demonstrate a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments (in the plural), which is consistent with the statUtory requirement for 
e~tensive evid~J!c.e. Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 
204.5(h)(3) ate worded in the plural. Specifically, tbe regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(ix) only require service on a single judging panel ot a single high salary. When a regula.tory criterion 
wishes to in~lude the smgula,r within tile plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 CER. § 
204.5(K)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of"letter(s)." thus, the plural in the 
remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal coUrts have upheld USCI.S' 
ability to interpret sigmficance from whether the $.i:rlgplar or plural is used in a regulation.4 
For all of the above ~ea,sons, the petitioner does not meet the plain .language requirements of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), · 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
4 See Matainjay(J. v. USClS, C::iv. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 \Vi 349H)05 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an ipterpret~tion that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204;5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of ac~den.tic credentials). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECED£NT P£CI$/ON 
Page 9 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly dem.onstrate 
th:;1t the alien h~ achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the vety top of the field of endeavor . 
. Had . the petitioner submitted the requisite evide11ce Ullcler at least three ·evidentiary categories, in 
atcordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would . be a final merits detemlin:ation that 
considers aU of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the il)dividmd i_s OI1e of th~t smali percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim.. a,nd th~1.t his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also KazariQ,n, 596 F.3ci at Ul9-20, While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or intem(ltional acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determi1iation.5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. at 1122. The petitioner has not esmblishe<i 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The appe(l} wil.l be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
a:nd alternate basis for the decision. In visa petitiot:l proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish .eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Se.ction 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C,, § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Pee. f27, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORi>ER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See So/!cllte v. DOl; 381 F.3d 143,.145 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C..F.R. § 103.5(a.)(l)(ii). See also section 
l03(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March .l, 2003); 
8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 1.-&-N~ Dec~ 458, 460 (BIA 
1987) (holding that legacy INS, now U-SCIS, is the sole authority witb the ]tJrisc:li.ction to decide visa 
p~ti_t~ons).